IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th January 2021, 05:09 PM   #361
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,609
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
To be fair, biblically the fear thing is mostly Old Testament and the love thing is mostly New. Some people have speculated that the god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament are actually different gods, but I don't think this theory has much traction among people who think they know what they're talking about.

Well there is this in The New Testament:

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
1 Peter 2:17, KJV

What do you think of the concept of "choosing to believe" however? Me. I believe something because I am "compelled too", having sifted through the evidence. The Idea of choosing to believe something because you get some goodies if you do, is just nonsense to me.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 05:14 PM   #362
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,273
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Well there is this in The New Testament:

"Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king."
1 Peter 2:17, KJV
Well, I did say mostly.

Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
What do you think of the concept of "choosing to believe" however? Me. I believe something because I am "compelled too", having sifted through the evidence. The Idea of choosing to believe something because you get some goodies if you do, is just nonsense to me.
Well, I kind of did. It was framed as "choosing to accept Jesus into my life", but it was basically what you're talking about. My explanation? I was young, and was still working out how stuff worked, I guess. Hard to say.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 07:44 PM   #363
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Logic is also a subset of maths, and in fact of bayesian reasoning. You're just dealing with probabilities of 1.0 and 0.0.
Ironically Doctor Who of all things showed that logic built from a flawed premice produces nonsense.

DOCTOR: All elephants are pink. Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?
DAVROS: Perfectly.
DOCTOR: You know what a human would say to that?
DAVROS: What?
TYSSAN: Elephants aren't pink.

Another example is the old cliche of giving the perfectly logical computer an illogical statement and watch it blow its circuits. Star Trek seemed to use this a lot.

KIRK: He lied. Everything Harry tells you is a lie. Remember that. Everything Harry tells you is a lie.
MUDD: Listen to this carefully, Norman. I am lying.
NORMAN: You say you are lying, but if everything you say is a lie then you are telling the truth, but you cannot tell the truth because everything you say is a lie. You lie. You tell the truth. But you cannot for. Illogical! Illogical! Please explain.

As I said before the tools to spot Piltdown for the fake it were available at that time and several scientists in the field said as much but because it fit the model that existed at the time (brain evolved first) these warnings were ignored. The model drove the theory and everybody ignored the evidence that a simple hand lens reveals (the file marks were formally mentioned by Franz Weidenreich in 1923 and people fore him as early as 1913 spotted the forgery).

And that was what Miner would pointing out about 1950s anthrology but he did it in a way that could not easily be ignored - as straight satire of the whole process.

Last edited by maximara; 14th January 2021 at 07:54 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 08:12 PM   #364
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
I remember years ago on a now-defunct forum, a creationist being stunned because they didn't know of the existence of other kinds of radiometric dating. They had to concede that it was not a good argument. It didn't change their conviction, just their use of the argument.
There is a cross index of tree 14,000 rings in length before encountering a gap. That means we can go back to 10,000 BCE just on the tree rings alone.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 08:13 PM   #365
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,273
ETA: Never mind. Misread.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 08:29 PM   #366
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
To be fair, biblically the fear thing is mostly Old Testament and the love thing is mostly New. Some people have speculated that the god of the Old Testament and the god of the New Testament are actually different gods, but I don't think this theory has much traction among people who think they know what they're talking about.
Actually the idea is very very old and seems to go back to Marcion of Sinope c. 140s CE with him saying the OT god was a demiurge created by the true God. This view partly survives in our bible as 2 Corinthians 4:4. He is also credited with creating the first Bible - "Paul"'s writings and a different version of Luke
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 08:38 PM   #367
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,273
Interesting!
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 09:05 PM   #368
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Ironically Doctor Who of all things showed that logic built from a flawed premice produces nonsense.
Considering that I've mentioned "unsound" several times in this thread alone -- which is the proper name for an argument when the premises are false -- I'm not sure why do you think you need to say that.

Other than, of course, AGAIN just posting random smart-sounding stuff as a dodge.

Honestly, at this point I'm wondering what your point even is in this thread. As in, at all. You just seem to pop up randomly to spew some irrelevant truisms that don't even seem to connect to the message you were answering to, or really to whatever was being discussed.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
As I said before the tools to spot Piltdown for the fake it were available at that time and several scientists in the field said as much but because it fit the model that existed at the time (brain evolved first) these warnings were ignored. The model drove the theory and everybody ignored the evidence that a simple hand lens reveals (the file marks were formally mentioned by Franz Weidenreich in 1923 and people fore him as early as 1913 spotted the forgery).
Except, of course, that

1. That still doesn't answer the question in the message you're answering to.

2. you're just equivocating again. "Everybody" ignored the evidence? Really? I mean, you just mentioned yourself several people who weren't ignoring the problems. And there were many many more.

For a start, the whole thing was presented at a GEOLOGY conference, not a palaeontology one. Most of the actual palaeontologists were actually in the camp of calling it a fraud. The ones defending it tended to be more from vaguely related fields like, yes, anthropologists. Though even those were a minority, compared to where the thing was REALLY a hit: namely sensationalist journalists.

3. also you don't seem to understand how science works. Which you probably should, before criticizing how it's applied.

The fact is that at the time there actually weren't any actual hominid fossils from between H Heidelbergensis and H Sapiens or Neanderthals. Expecting someone to know a priori that the model of brain evolving first is wrong, expects pretty much omniscience.

That's not how science works. We build models based on available data. Usually they're wrong in some way. (As the saying goes, every scientist who ever lived was wrong.) We revise them if and when new data contradicts them. Or not, if new data supports them.

Yes, there were OTHER signs that shouldn't have been ignored, but the basic idea of going with the current model if the latest finds seem to support it is not wrong.

The idea that ha ha, silly scientists accepted stuff because it fit the model, is just... showing a profound lack of understanding how that process works. You adjust your model based on new data, NOT expect to know that a model is wrong before you have the data to prove it wrong.

4. ... which is what seems to get you down the wrong rabbithole. In fact, if you look at who ran with it all the way, most had some other agenda, than just wanting to validate the model or not. In fact, THE most common denominator by far were nationalism and racism. Comparing it to the current model was not the wrong part, nor the real driving force. Wanting to have some justification for completely non-scientific bigotry was.

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
And that was what Miner would pointing out about 1950s anthrology but he did it in a way that could not easily be ignored - as straight satire of the whole process.
It's easy to satirize, when you're not constrained by having to be honest. But it proves... what?

In fact, it just seems to me like it just goes full circle to what you were saying at the beginning of this message: if you lie about the premises, and equivocate heavily for good measure too, sure, you can take a valid method and arrive at some bogus conclusions. But unlike what you seem to believe, that doesn't mean you did a kind of ad absurdum disproof of the method.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 14th January 2021 at 09:31 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 09:20 PM   #369
dejudge
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,825
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@dejudge
TBF that's taking it out of contex, although it's one of the rare cases where the out-of-context version is actually smarter than the original

GDon was really saying that he finds Pascal's faith-in-faith argument brilliant and convincing, rather than strictly speaking the Wager itself.

And frankly, that's even worse
. I mean, at least the wager is backed by some pseudo-maths based on game theory. I can at least see how that would look convincing to people who haven't put much thought into it. The faith-in-faith part, however, is one of the dumbest (and most extended) cases of bare postulates in history. Finding THAT brilliant is... less defensible by half, to say the least.

I am happy that you admit GDon found one of the dumbest cases of bare postulates in history to be brilliant and convincing.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th January 2021, 09:28 PM   #370
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
I am happy that you admit GDon found one of the dumbest cases of bare postulates in history to be brilliant and convincing.
Admit? Hell, I've been saying it since like page 2 or so.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th January 2021, 01:23 PM   #371
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 6,609
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post

Well, I kind of did. It was framed as "choosing to accept Jesus into my life", but it was basically what you're talking about. My explanation? I was young, and was still working out how stuff worked, I guess. Hard to say.

Could we perhaps describe it as you being convinced of the truth of the Jesus stuff, because of the evidence of the happy smiling faces of those that had done just that? I can accept this as having more credibility than just choosing to believe.

I stand by my position:

I think the idea of choosing to believe in a god so as to be rewarded by that god if he happens to exist is nonsense.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2021, 09:05 PM   #372
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,273
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Could we perhaps describe it as you being convinced of the truth of the Jesus stuff, because of the evidence of the happy smiling faces of those that had done just that? I can accept this as having more credibility than just choosing to believe.
*shrug* Frame it however you will. I definitely feel like I made a decision at that time. Of course, it was a long long time ago, and you know what they say about memory.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2021, 10:45 PM   #373
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Well, upon thinking about it some more, I think you SORTA can decide. Perhaps not as in directly "do I want to believe X is true", which probably almost everyone would spot the problem with, but as in "do I trust this guy?" Pretty much just moving the problem one step further.

And at least as a kid, trusting your parents comes very naturally. Well, at least as long as they haven't gone out of their way to sabotage that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2021, 05:32 AM   #374
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
4. ... which is what seems to get you down the wrong rabbithole. In fact, if you look at who ran with it all the way, most had some other agenda, than just wanting to validate the model or not. In fact, THE most common denominator by far were nationalism and racism. Comparing it to the current model was not the wrong part, nor the real driving force. Wanting to have some justification for completely non-scientific bigotry was.
Yet not even people who had no vested interest in Piltdown accepted even when the most casual study would have shown it was a fake.

Another example is before Plate Tectonics there was this insane idea of land bridges between the various continents (like South America and Africa) which was built on the theory that the continents didn't move. The idea that such a huge land mass could simple disappear is silly beyond belief.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2021, 09:09 AM   #375
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Yet not even people who had no vested interest in Piltdown accepted even when the most casual study would have shown it was a fake.
1. Actually fewer than you'd think, when you take out those with a racist or nationalist agenda. E.g., even just looking at the stark difference in acceptance between the UK (where some wanted it to show that the British evolved a big brain first; never mind that history said they're not the descendants of those hypothetical hominids anyway) and the rest of the world, kinda drives that point home. When you move out of the rah-rah-rah nationalistic chest-thumping circles, almost everyone (who was qualified to make that call, as opposed to geologists and whatnot chiming in with their uninformed opinion) had no problem saying that nope, those two aren't even fitting together.


2. Either way, that still doesn't say what you seem to want it to say.

Having the wrong model is NOT a problem for the scientific method. The existing model is what you're trying to falsify. All those existing theories and whatnot? Those are your model. And you're trying to prove that model wrong. That's how you get a better model. That's the whole POINT of science.

IF you're doing science, that is.

If you're stuck defending the model against new data, that's the polar opposite of doing science.

So basically all you're showing isn't some failure of the scientific method, but some failure to use the scientific method in the first place. As in, yeah, some people were not doing science. That's all there is to it. How the f-bomb does that illustrate any problem with the scientific method or its application, then?

Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Another example is before Plate Tectonics there was this insane idea of land bridges between the various continents (like South America and Africa) which was built on the theory that the continents didn't move. The idea that such a huge land mass could simple disappear is silly beyond belief.
So basically you're requiring omniscience? As in, to somehow have a fully correct model before the data or supporting theories for it?

Learn what science even means and how it works, silly, before presuming to criticize it. Your being too intellectually unequipped to understand it isn't a failure of science. It's just your failure.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 18th January 2021 at 09:13 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2021, 09:12 AM   #376
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 30,692
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So basically you're requiring omniscience? As in, to somehow have a fully correct model before the data or supporting theories for it?
Yes. It's the same "Science was wrong before (with wrong defined as not 100% perfectly correct and completed picture about everything immediately out of the gate) therefore Woo" argument.

Science has been wrong before it was corrected with more, better science.

Woo has always been wrong about everything.
__________________
Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question."
Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..."
Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2021, 09:15 AM   #377
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yes. It's the same "Science was wrong before (with wrong defined as not 100% perfectly correct and completed picture about everything immediately out of the gate) therefore Woo" argument.

Science has been wrong before it was corrected with more, better science.

Woo has always been wrong about everything.
Pretty much.

I'm only surprised it comes from Maximara this time, really. Could have sworn they were way smarter than that. But I guess I can be wrong too
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2021, 04:53 AM   #378
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Pretty much.

I'm only surprised it comes from Maximara this time, really. Could have sworn they were way smarter than that. But I guess I can be wrong too
I am smarter then that. I think what you have missed is the point I am actually making: to even begin getting data you have to have a concept about how things work and that concept determines on what data is "valid".

For example, take the Christ Myth theory a debate that has woo on both sides because the there is the hypothesis that Jesus existence is a yes or no question rather then going deeper and asking the key question 'why is meant by historical?'

Is it Jesus had to live in the time the Gospels claim or can he have lived nearly a century earlier or 30 years later? It is that the gospels describe the highly mythologized life of an actual 1st century preacher or can he be a preexisting celestial being that the actions of one or more would be messiahs were added to? Was there a pagan group called Chrestians, is that as is claimed just another name of Christians, or is it a mixture of the two?

Or how about the Aristotelian Cosmology woo that dominated Western thought for about 2000 years that the most basic use to the scientific method would have disproved large sections of?

On a side note did you know many of the various silly experiments in Balnibarbi (Gulliver's Travels) were taken nearly verbatim from actual experiments by the Royal Society?

A point Burke makes in the final episode of Day the Universe Changed (Worlds without End) and one Extra Credits reiterates (God Does Not Play Dice - The Danger of Unquestioned Belief) is you have to have a model (Burke calls it a structure and Extra Credits calls it postulates) to begin to determine what the supposedly "raw data" you are looking for even is.

"Without hypothesises, preconceptions of the world, how could you even begin research?" Burke uses some classic optical illusions to show this a basic level and later says this model "provides a rulebook for the kind of questions you ask about the world because it gives you the theory on how things are supposed to work." It is when a repeatable observation is made that doesn't fit the structure such as dropping two objects of different weight hitting the ground at different times (Aristotelian Cosmology) vs what really happens) that the structure has to change.

Extra Credit goes into how that structure can blind you by using Einstein's unwavering postulate that you could be certain about key aspects of the universe. This is why he rejected Quantum mechanics even after it had been deemed useful by the scientific community: "God does not play dice."

And if that happens at the hard science level then what about the soft sciences like history, psycology, psychiatry, or anthropology? Or sciences that are a blend of soft and hard like medicine, biology, and archeology?

Last edited by maximara; 19th January 2021 at 05:12 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2021, 07:43 AM   #379
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Still not sure what the point even is.

Much less how it connects to the only point I was making when you started this detour: that yes, it's valid to apply a hypothesis on other values than what the original author did, and in fact we have the scientific method as an example of something that's BASED on that.

But ok, let's go through it point by point:

1. The data is what you need to explain. If it's reproducible or otherwise reliable, that's it. It's not "valid" or "invalid", it just is. That's what you need to explain.

The model is what explains it.

You don't decide what is "valid" or not, by how it fits a model. In fact, discarding data because it doesn't fit the existing model is exactly b-ass-ackwards if you're actually doing science. It's in fact the polar opposite of doing science.

The model may give you hints at where to look for more data that might or might not contradict the model, that you wouldn't have otherwise looked for. Like how having a GR frame dragging equation gave people the idea to do the Gravity Probe B experiment to see if it actually happens. But that's a completely different thing than deciding which data is "valid" and which isn't.


2. And it certainly doesn't prevent you from having data that you don't have a model for at all. In fact, for just about every single domain, historically we started at a point where we didn't have the foggiest idea of how or what happens, and we had to start making a model from scratch.

E.g., before Newton could figure out the law of gravity, we started at a point where we had NO idea why the planet orbits are what they are. We DIDN'T have "a concept about how things work." No, seriously, best we had was "because God moves them that way." (See, Aquinas.) It still was data that needed to be explained.

E.g., even the Aristotelian model that you mention, someone had to come up with that stuff in the first place. Why do some things fall faster than others? Why does the same horse pull an empty cart faster than a loaded cart? We had no idea. But it was data and someone had to come up with some explanation. Hell, they even had to come up with a system (not quite scientific yet, but still) that would provide an explanation.

Etc.

Sure, later some other people proved that model wrong by coming up with a better one, but that does NOT mean that "to even begin getting data you have to have a concept about how things work." If that were the case, no new domain would have ever gotten off the ground in the first place.


3. "Or how about the Aristotelian Cosmology woo that dominated Western thought for about 2000 years that the most basic use to the scientific method would have disproved large sections of?" is just about the most nonsense thing I've read recently, even topping most of the apologist stuff. It's really as stupid a question as asking why did Columbus sail to discover America, instead of looking on Google maps.

The scientific method didn't EXIST yet, silly. The whole struggle around the 17'th century or so was to replace the Aristotelian system with what would become the scientific method.


4. It also didn't help that the Aristotelian system had the church's backing. And not even the whole Aristotelian system. The Pope pretty much dictated what you can teach in a university, and what you can not. Even a whole chunk of the Aristotelian system was excluded.

And most of the personnel of those universities were clergy. And the Papal Inquisition cracked down the hardest on its own ranks. Things that you could maybe get away with as a layperson, were utterly not safe to say if you were a member of the church.

So, uh, yeah: gee, I wonder why didn't people use a yet non-existent method, during a time when you could be burned at the stake for deviating from the official method?


5. "It is when a repeatable observation is made that doesn't fit the structure such as dropping two objects of different weight hitting the ground at different times (Aristotelian Cosmology) vs what really happens) that the structure has to change." Uh, yes, so? Since the job of the model is to explain the data, OF COURSE it only changes when you actually have data that isn't explained by the existing one.

Basically you still seem to be demanding omniscience, as in, to have a complete and fully correct model before you even have any data to base it on. Which is stupid.

That's not how science works.


6. It's also historically incorrect, which is weird coming from someone with a history background. Galileo didn't actually need to drop two cannonballs like the myth goes. He actually could go jiujitsu style, as in, fully Aristotle thought experiment on it: what happens if you drop two cannonballs of different weights and tie them with a piece of chain. Cf Aristotle, on one hand the smaller one (which naturally falls slower) should pretty much be braking the larger one (which tends to fall faster), but on the other hand the whole body of the two tied together would fall faster than either of them.

He did an ad absurdum, really.

(And, honestly, going 2000 years without someone noticing THAT problem is the much more mind-boggling thing.)


7. You're including HJ discussions under science or the scientific method? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?


All in all, you seriously don't convince me that you even understand what science is at all.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 19th January 2021 at 07:54 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2021, 05:06 PM   #380
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
1. The data is what you need to explain. If it's reproducible or otherwise reliable, that's it. It's not "valid" or "invalid", it just is. That's what you need to explain.

The model is what explains it.

You don't decide what is "valid" or not, by how it fits a model.
Actually you do in the soft sciences all the time. Dunnel and Binford debated the issue 'does style have function' in anthological and archeology for nearly a decade and after all that got to 'maybe'.

A perfect example of this taken straight from one of my classes is the American migration vs the Australian one. At that time scientists had found out even with low sea levels you couldn't get a full land bridge to Australia so they must have used primitive boats (even though we have no evidence of such boats). But this alternative isn't even considered with regards to American migration even though it would explain some of the hiccups in the archeological record seen in Americas

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
In fact, discarding data because it doesn't fit the existing model is exactly b-ass-ackwards if you're actually doing science. It's in fact the polar opposite of doing science.
Points to the Christ myth theory and yes history is a science.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
2. And it certainly doesn't prevent you from having data that you don't have a model for at all. In fact, for just about every single domain, historically we started at a point where we didn't have the foggiest idea of how or what happens, and we had to start making a model from scratch.

E.g., before Newton could figure out the law of gravity, we started at a point where we had NO idea why the planet orbits are what they are. We DIDN'T have "a concept about how things work." No, seriously, best we had was "because God moves them that way." (See, Aquinas.) It still was data that needed to be explained.
Actually they had several. There was Aristotle's model (still being held on by the Catholic Church down south), Johannes Kepler's perfect solid model (which he was forced to throw out as he got most measurements), whatever Aldus Manutius has found regarding Aristarchus of Samos and so on.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
E.g., even the Aristotelian model that you mention, someone had to come up with that stuff in the first place. Why do some things fall faster than others?
In the absence of air they don't. Something Aristotle himself could have checked with two rocks rather than a rock and a feather.

More over Burke gives some more insane examples of how off the wall of the Aristotelian model was. Straight lines only on Earth and curves only in heaven?! Did Aristotle never see a spear (something around since the freaking Stone Age) in flight?! I though it was Homer who was blind.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Why does the same horse pull an empty cart faster than a loaded cart?
But people would know that heavier objects are harder to carry (more fatiguing) so it would follow the same for the horse.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
3. "Or how about the Aristotelian Cosmology woo that dominated Western thought for about 2000 years that the most basic use to the scientific method would have disproved large sections of?" is just about the most nonsense thing I've read recently, even topping most of the apologist stuff. It's really as stupid a question as asking why did Columbus sail to discover America, instead of looking on Google maps
That is so non sequitur that I am surprised you even made it. Columbus sailed west because his geography was messed up between Asia being seen longer than it really (Toscanelli map, 1474) and having a Earth far smaller in diameter then it really was (Day the Universe Changed - Point of View). And the only reason he tried that was the Europeans were tired of paying the Arabs for the spices out East. But one of Portugal's sailors finally got around the tip of Africa and so the idea was largely DOA. In fact, it is kind of miracle Columbus was able to sale the idea to Spain.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
4. It also didn't help that the Aristotelian system had the church's backing. And not even the whole Aristotelian system. The Pope pretty much dictated what you can teach in a university, and what you can not. Even a whole chunk of the Aristotelian system was excluded.
Which chunk? In fact the way the Anglican and Catholic Churches handled the vacuum is a perfect example of how the postulates shape the acceptance of data. The Catholic Church said the vacuum couldn't exist because Aristotle said there were no "holes" in the universe.

But according to Burke the Anglican Church took a different tack and said the vacuum was filled by something outside of our normal experience (basically angels and souls) and if they existed so did God and his authority on Earth through the King so it was "Long Live the Vacuum" .

In fact, the Catholic Church could have gotten around the whole mess Aristotle via the shadows on the cave wall example which also dated back to the ancient Greeks. The heaven people saw up there was a shadow of the real one and so of course it didn't behave like the "real" heaven. Ironically to fix the calendar the Catholic Church had effectively thrown Aristotle out on his ear and adopted Copernicus' model for the simple reason the Aristotle was, by that time, a Rude Goldberg on an acid trip mathematical nightmare with some 90 little "fiddly bits" to get things work. It was only when Galileo made a fuss that things got nasty as up to then Copernicus' model had been blown off as a "mathematical device".

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
5. "It is when a repeatable observation is made that doesn't fit the structure such as dropping two objects of different weight hitting the ground at different times (Aristotelian Cosmology) vs what really happens) that the structure has to change." Uh, yes, so? Since the job of the model is to explain the data, OF COURSE it only changes when you actually have data that isn't explained by the existing one.
Yet anyone in Aristotle's time or later could have shown he was talking nonsense. Then there was the whole straight lines on Earth circles only in heaven nonsense. As I said before did Aristotle never seen a spear thrown?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
6. It's also historically incorrect, which is weird coming from someone with a history background. Galileo didn't actually need to drop two cannonballs like the myth goes. He actually could go jiujitsu style, as in, fully Aristotle thought experiment on it: what happens if you drop two cannonballs of different weights and tie them with a piece of chain. Cf Aristotle, on one hand the smaller one (which naturally falls slower) should pretty much be braking the larger one (which tends to fall faster), but on the other hand the whole body of the two tied together would fall faster than either of them.

He did an ad absurdum, really.
Which could have been performed with different materials in Aristotle's time

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
7. You're including HJ discussions under science or the scientific method? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?
History is a soft science so yes.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2021, 06:56 PM   #381
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
I could write more, but basically none of what you write there has anything to do with the scientific method.

Criticizing the scientific method because of what its predecessor, the Aristotelian system did -- even after having it pointed out to you that they're different and the former didn't even exist until some 2000 years after Aristotle -- is... just stupid beyond belief. It's literally like criticizing Chemistry for the beliefs of Alchemy, or like those who criticized Obama for stuff actually done by Bush.

As for history, there's a reason why it's called the HISTORICAL METHOD, not the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. So again, you're criticizing the latter without apparently even having a clue what it is.

Edit: I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm even a fan of the modern historical method, but it's a different thing from the scientific method. You can't criticize the latter for the sins of the former, nor viceversa.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 19th January 2021 at 07:21 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2021, 07:19 PM   #382
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
That said, if you want to discuss Aristotle -- again, especially for someone claiming to do history -- it would help if you discussed what he actually said, not what you misunderstood at the end of a game of Chinese whispers.

Aristotle's argument against a vacuum was more than just "there are no holes in nature." It was based upon such stuff as that in his system the speed at which something falls, all else being equal, was proportional to its weight (hence the two weights problem) and inversely proportional to the density of the medium (hence stuff falling slower in water than in air.) Basically he was kinda close to discovering drag, but basically instead of applying it as a force in the opposite direction, he just divided by density. So if there were a vacuum anywhere, you'd have nature dividing by zero.

It's not even the daftest thing he wrote, but there we go: it even had a formula. It wasn't as simple as imagining holes in the skies, and it wasn't really solvable by going Plato's cave on its ass. You needed a better formula first. Which also needed better instruments first.

And, honestly, even the existence of the moons of Jupiter was a bigger problem for the Aristotelian system. As I was saying, it had dafter things in it than the falling speed formula, and that was one of the places where it did. Which is why it starts really crashing down after Galileo.

But, again, this was not the scientific method, nor anything even vaguely resembling the scientific method.


As for which parts did the Catholics forbid teaching, well, pretty much anything contrary to the official dogma or contradicting the bible, really.

The biggest or arguably most important chunk was Aristotle's multiple worlds. It was explicitly forbidden by name, so to speak. And they cared enough about that, for it to actually be one of the charges in Giordano Bruno's trial. And they were quite adamant that he must give up ALL those ideas (including this one,) not just some of them. Quite literally, believing there may be more than one 'Earth', instead of Earth being a one-off that God personally lovingly created, was enough of a charge to warrant a good ol' burning at the stake even by itself.

But pretty much the whole Bible was a minefield, in addition to where they explicitly said that this chunk of Aristotle is out. One example I keep using was their problem with heliocentrism, namely that OT verse where God stops the sun in the sky. It really depended on what cardinal or pope you asked, whether you're allowed to contradict that or not. Hell even the same pope was more than ok with it and encouraged Galileo to write his book about it... right until Galileo flamed him brutally in that book. At which point he had Galileo tried for... contradicting the exact same verse. Basically the same pope, in the same year, made a 180 degree turn as to whether you're allowed to contradict the same verse, based on no more than really wanting to show someone who's the boss. THAT arbitrary.

And make no mistake, if Galileo had been clergy like Giordano Bruno, he would have very probably been burned. So, yeah, there you have it. If you wondered why the clergy staffing the universities at the time didn't just ditch what the pope said they should teach and do their own thing, yeah, the Papal Inquisition may well be why
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 19th January 2021 at 08:01 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th January 2021, 07:53 PM   #383
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Actually, screw it, let's talk about the Gregorian calendar too, since I don't know where the hell do you even get all these pseudo-historical ideas from.

It had exactly NOTHING to do with the Copernican system, which, no, wasn't adopted by the Church at the time. For anything.

Not the least because Copernicus wanted everything to be perfect, hence perfectly circular orbits, hence it actually had WORSE predictive power than the old epicycles. Literally, Copernicus did worse at predicting planet positions than even the old Antikythera mechanism, almost 2000 years before. It wasn't until Kepler's elliptical orbits that it actually was usable for anything.

The notion that the Church somehow secretly favoured Copernicus as MORE accurate, or that that's how they got a more accurate calendar is just nuts. It's 100% counter-factual.

Nor did the old calendar have ANYTHING to do with Aristotle, really. It was called the JULIAN calendar for a reason, you know?

Anyway, the problem was known long before Copernicus was even born. The first who mentions it (as far as we know) was Bede in the 8'th century, for crying out loud. It was also mentioned by such figures as Dante Alighieri, and you probably never thought of him as a copernican scientist, right? You know, what with living a long time before Copernicus was even born? I mean, right?

And the final tables that would eventually be used to setting the calendar straight were also there before Copernicus was even born. See, for example, Tabule illustrissimi principis regis alfonsii, published somewhere between 1401 and 1404.

It literally only had to do with the position of stuff in the sky at certain dates, and bringing Christmas back in sync (sky-wise) with how it was at the time of the Council of Nicaea. It had literally NOTHING to do with how Copernicus said that that stuff moved. In fact, you didn't need ANY model for that. You just needed to know that the observed motion of the skies has a period slightly different from the Julian year in use at the time. You didn't need to explain WHY, as in, how they moved or what moved them. You just needed to know that things are shifting a bit each year, and by how much, and work out how much that meant since the time of Nicaea. That was it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 19th January 2021 at 07:57 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2021, 05:48 PM   #384
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Actually, screw it, let's talk about the Gregorian calendar too, since I don't know where the hell do you even get all these pseudo-historical ideas from.

It had exactly NOTHING to do with the Copernican system, which, no, wasn't adopted by the Church at the time. For anything.
"The Roman Church, sitting in council at Trento only two years after Copernicus’ work was published by the astronomer’s pupil Johannes Rheticus, a professor at Luther’s university, accepted the text without reaction. It was unconcerned with the apparently revolutionary nature of Copernican thought. The official view had been expressed by the Dutch astronomer Gemma Frisius, in 1541:

"It hardly matters to me whether he claims that the Earth moves or that it is immobile, so long as we get an absolutely exact knowledge of the movements of the stars and of the periods of their movements, and so long as both are reduced to altogether exact calculation"

Copernican theory was valued for its mathematical elegance. It made the heavens available to accurate and repeatable observation. In his introductory letter to the Pope, Copernicus himself had noted that previous attempts to put mathematical order into the sky were in confusion, with some people using one system, some another. (...)

Copernicus had satisfied everybody’s demand that the hypotheses be as simple as possible and that they should ‘save the appearances’, or account for what heavenly phenomena appear to be, as exactly as possible. A fictional orbiting earth would do so. The scheme was taken up without demur, and used to reform the calendar in 1582." - Day the Universe Changed (Infinitely Reasonable)

Here are Burke's sources for that chapter:

Allen, D. J., The Philosophy of Aristotle (Oxford University Press, 1952).

Andrade, E. N., Isaac Newton (M. Parrish, 1950).

Boyer, Carl B., The History of Calculus and Its Conceptual Development (Dover Publications:New York, 1949).

Busch, H., and Lohse, B., Baroque Europe (Batsford, 1962).

Casper, Max, Kepler (Abelard-Schuman: New York and London, 1959).

Clagett, Marshall, History of Science (University of Wisconsin Press, 1969).

Drake, Stillman, Galileo (Oxford University Press, 1980).

Dreyer, J. L. E., Tycho Brake: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century (Dover Publications: New York, 1963).

Goldstein, Thomas, The Dawn of Modern Science (Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1980).

Hall, A. R., Scientific Revolution 1500-1800 (Longmans, Green, 1954).

Kline, Morris, Mathematics in Western Culture (Pelican: Harmondsworth, 1953).

Koyré, Alexandre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957).

Kuhn, Thomas, The Copernican Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1957).

Pledge, H. T., Science Since 1500 (HMSO, 1966).

Westman, Robert S., The Copernican Achievement (University of California Press, 1975)

Perhaps reading or watching Day the Universe Change would help to understand where I am coming from.

Last edited by maximara; 20th January 2021 at 05:50 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2021, 06:05 PM   #385
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Or you could go to the actual text of the papal bull and the council of trent notes, and notice that none of them mention Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations at all:

http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/intGrvEng.html
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

You know, as opposed to relying on an increasingly silly game of Chinese whispers where some guy deduced what some other guy really thought, another guy guesses what he meant by that, and so on

And note that the former actually cites the authors of that, and what method was used. Yeah, the pope actually cites his sources. It names Antonio Lilio and Aloysius, and the method being a "Golden Number pattern" to exactly match the length of the year. But conspicuously doesn't say ANYTHING about Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations.

Unfortunately especially when it comes to history, myths can get circulated just because everyone cites everyone else, without looking at whether there's actually any support for that happening.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 20th January 2021 at 06:19 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2021, 07:01 PM   #386
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,160
I have placed my bets on the following:

I am me, with the thoughts, experiences, feelings, intelligence, etc that I have. I have very little control over any of that.

Assuming a God created me, and such a God is the three O’s, He/She/It created me as I am in the reality I live in, knowing full well what I would do and how I would think.

Therefore, God must want me do and think exactly what I’m thinking and doing now. It’s impossible for me to think and do otherwise. If he wants to punish me because I can’t do the impossible, there’s nothing I can do about it whatsoever. So I’m just going to be me.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2021, 07:15 PM   #387
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 70,273
If God exists, they know exactly what it would take to make me into a believer. Therefore I conclude that if they exist, then they want me to be an atheist.
__________________
Please scream inside your heart.
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 07:00 AM   #388
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 22,574
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If God exists, they know exactly what it would take to make me into a believer. Therefore I conclude that if they exist, then they want me to be an atheist.
That is a very concise philosophy. I like it.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 07:36 AM   #389
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,601
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If God exists, they know exactly what it would take to make me into a believer. Therefore I conclude that if they exist, then they want me to be an atheist.

On the other hand, if God exists, and that God has a quirky sense of humor, then, while they would know what it might take to make you a believer, they might go out of their way to not make that something happen. So that you'd end up believing, wrongly, that they don't exist.

After that? If their sense of humor is quirky but harmless, they'll emerge in all glory when you enter the afterlife, and they'd poke you playfully in the ribs and laugh at you for having been taken in. And if their sense of humor is malicious and sadistic, then they'd fry you for not believing, and laugh at the burning screaming mess.

In which case, the only way to outwit such a God would be to believe in God despite there being no rational reason to.

And that bilge that came out, as I set out to write a joke of a response to that reasoning of yours, seems to have ended up sounding like some kind of a fideist argument! Except not really, because it does provide a reasoned "reason" to believe, even if that "reason" is kind of topsy-turvy.



eta:

Taking that nonsensical reasoning somewhat further : GDon wagers that God is omnibenevolent, reasoning that you're screwed either which way in case God happens to be malevolent, so that one can ignore the possibility of a malevolent God; but it seems to me that if there is a God, and that God is truly benevolent, then no matter what you do they won't make you suffer, not really, while a malevolent God can and will make things very painful for you, so that it makes sense to wager, if wager one must along these lines, that God is malevolent, and try to figure out how best to appease that malevolent God.

Which, when you think about it, is exactly what the Bible is about, right?

Last edited by Chanakya; 21st January 2021 at 07:55 AM.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 08:02 AM   #390
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,528
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
That is a very concise philosophy. I like it.
Then you'd love a spoiled brat:

"If you want me to be nice to granny, you'd buy me a pony. Since you didn't, I assume you don't want me too."
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 08:41 AM   #391
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 22,574
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Then you'd love a spoiled brat:

"If you want me to be nice to granny, you'd buy me a pony. Since you didn't, I assume you don't want me too."
Yeah, a kid will get like that if you neglect them. That's really on the parents.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 09:32 AM   #392
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,528
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Yeah, a kid will get like that if you neglect them. That's really on the parents.
Exactly the point. The philosophy assumes a coddling, overly indulgent and spoon-feeding God that expects you not to lift a finger. Not sure where that comes from.

I use a variant: if there is a god, he chooses to make himself unknown for whatever reason. Not my gig to be so presumptuous as to understand why, or what's going on in his head. So, agnosticism.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 09:59 AM   #393
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Or you could go to the actual text of the papal bull and the council of trent notes, and notice that none of them mention Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations at all:

http://myweb.ecu.edu/mccartyr/intGrvEng.html
https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html
Of course they aren't going directly mention Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations because of the reasons outlined in Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991) Defending Copernicus and Galileo (2010), Jesuit Biblical Studies after Trent (2019), and many others. It was heresy to call such things "real" and there was no way in that time period that a Pope would do something that crazy.

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
You know, as opposed to relying on an increasingly silly game of Chinese whispers where some guy deduced what some other guy really thought, another guy guesses what he meant by that, and so on

And note that the former actually cites the authors of that, and what method was used. Yeah, the pope actually cites his sources. It names Antonio Lilio and Aloysius, and the method being a "Golden Number pattern" to exactly match the length of the year. But conspicuously doesn't say ANYTHING about Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations.
Again given how it flew in face of the Bible (Battle of Jericho) how could even the Pope reference Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations?

Also according to the Pope Antonio Lilio only "brought to us a book" there is nothing about his going over or making corrections just him giving the book.

In fact, the Pope expressly states it is his brother Aloysius Luigi was the one to do the calculations not that it was a joint effort by the brothers. More based on Wikipedia (yes I know, roll with it) there is nothing to show Aloysius Luigi was a mathematician much less an astronomer. Never mind he died at the age of 23 and seemed to have been occupied with treating the sick.

Based on Golden number (time) I have no idea what "his own particular Golden Number pattern" even was. If that had worked the calendar wouldn't have been a mess to begin with.

My knowledge of historical anthropology is producing more red flags then a 25 car pile up at the Indianapolis Speedway. Also where did who ever actually did the book (I suspect Antonio Lilio) get their data from?

Last edited by maximara; 21st January 2021 at 10:02 AM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 10:41 AM   #394
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 22,574
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Exactly the point. The philosophy assumes a coddling, overly indulgent and spoon-feeding God that expects you not to lift a finger. Not sure where that comes from.
Not really, just a personal God that is omnipotent and omniscient.

Quote:
I use a variant: if there is a god, he chooses to make himself unknown for whatever reason. Not my gig to be so presumptuous as to understand why, or what's going on in his head. So, agnosticism.
Doesn't seem to conflict. I like that approach, too.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 21st January 2021 at 10:42 AM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 10:54 AM   #395
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 13,528
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
Not really, just a personal God that is omnipotent and omniscient.



Doesn't seem to conflict. I like that approach, too.
I think a lot of talking about whether there is a God centers on him being omni-giving-a-****-about-you-personally, which I think is totally unwarranted, and radically reframes the nature of the speculation. Kind of like throttling down a deity from an incomprehensible entity to some guy monitoring your masturbation. Just incomparable.
__________________
We find comfort among those who agree with us, growth among those who don't -Frank A. Clark

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 02:13 PM   #396
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 22,574
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
I think a lot of talking about whether there is a God centers on him being omni-giving-a-****-about-you-personally, which I think is totally unwarranted, and radically reframes the nature of the speculation. Kind of like throttling down a deity from an incomprehensible entity to some guy monitoring your masturbation. Just incomparable.
A non-omni-giving-a-****-about-you-personally God is unimportant to me personally. It has no bearing on my day to day decisions or ethics. In the parlance of this thread: there is no reason to act good. Hence, the smart wager is that I might as well act as I see fit if no one is keeping score.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 05:57 PM   #397
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Originally Posted by maximara View Post
Of course they aren't going directly mention Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations because of the reasons outlined in Galileo, Bellarmine, and the Bible (1991) Defending Copernicus and Galileo (2010), Jesuit Biblical Studies after Trent (2019), and many others. It was heresy to call such things "real" and there was no way in that time period that a Pope would do something that crazy.



Again given how it flew in face of the Bible (Battle of Jericho) how could even the Pope reference Copernicus or any heliocentric calculations?

Also according to the Pope Antonio Lilio only "brought to us a book" there is nothing about his going over or making corrections just him giving the book.

In fact, the Pope expressly states it is his brother Aloysius Luigi was the one to do the calculations not that it was a joint effort by the brothers. More based on Wikipedia (yes I know, roll with it) there is nothing to show Aloysius Luigi was a mathematician much less an astronomer. Never mind he died at the age of 23 and seemed to have been occupied with treating the sick.

Based on Golden number (time) I have no idea what "his own particular Golden Number pattern" even was. If that had worked the calendar wouldn't have been a mess to begin with.

My knowledge of historical anthropology is producing more red flags then a 25 car pile up at the Indianapolis Speedway. Also where did who ever actually did the book (I suspect Antonio Lilio) get their data from?
So basically you're proposing a literal conspiracy theory, right? Discard what those people actually wrote, and postulate what they secretly thought in their head, right? Because apparently you (or Burke) are SO psychic, that you know what someone who's been dead for 400 years REALLY thought, but apparently couldn't admit, right?

And based on no more than that the Pope once talked to Copernicus some years ago, i.e., about as dumb as saying that Trump must have been secretly a Democrat because he had some debates with the Democratic Party candidate before his presidency

I mean, I'm not even using the word "conspiracy theory" as a slur, or anything. That's LITERALLY what you're proposing: that the Pope and the cardinals involved (e.g., at the Council Of Trent) conspired to keep it a secret and not tell anyone or write anything about it.

But wait, if they didn't actually say or write it, how do you know it? Right, not based on any actual evidence, but because the straightforward version without a literal conspiracy is raising red flags for you. A.k.a., the Argument From Incredulity fallacy.

I mean, Jesus F Christ, it's even flimsier CT logic than the truthers or birthers. Even those could point out at SOME evidence (false as it may be) for their belief. You have exactly nothing except speculating what a long dead guy really thought, but didn't actually say or write anywhere.

I hope I can be excused if I'm not particularly moved by that kind of logic.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 06:51 PM   #398
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,133
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
If God exists, they know exactly what it would take to make me into a believer. Therefore I conclude that if they exist, then they want me to be an atheist.
This is Pablo's Wager:

If God exists and created me, then he created me as a rational thinking being, one that basis belief on evidence.

Yet, God does not provide me with the evidence that he knows I need in order to believe in him. Consequently, believing in him would require that I resort to faith, and not use the gift of rational thought I was created with.

Now, failing to use my God-given gifts to their fullest is an affront to God, and would be a sin. Therefore, I am forced to come to an immutable conclusion:

If God exists, it would be a sin for me to believe in him.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2021, 09:57 PM   #399
maximara
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,448
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
So basically you're proposing a literal conspiracy theory, right? Discard what those people actually wrote, and postulate what they secretly thought in their head, right?
Newflash that is what Historical Anthropology does in the form of historical Interpretation does. "Historical Interpretation requires synthesizing (combining) a variety of evidence, primary and secondary (critical thinking)." One document is not a variety of evidence. What you are doing is akin to taking Miner's Body Ritual among the Nacirema at face value and ignoring the context it was written in.

If you want a better insight into the foundations of modern Historical Anthropology:

Trigger, Bruce (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Trigger, Bruce (2006) A History of Archaeological Thought. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


Take a good look at that reference list Burke use again.

Allen, D. J., The Philosophy of Aristotle (Oxford University Press, 1952).

Andrade, E. N., Isaac Newton (M. Parrish, 1950).

Boyer, Carl B., The History of Calculus and Its Conceptual Development (Dover Publications:New York, 1949).

Busch, H., and Lohse, B., Baroque Europe (Batsford, 1962).

Casper, Max, Kepler (Abelard-Schuman: New York and London, 1959).

Clagett, Marshall, History of Science (University of Wisconsin Press, 1969).

Drake, Stillman, Galileo (Oxford University Press, 1980).

Dreyer, J. L. E., Tycho Brake: A Picture of Scientific Life and Work in the Sixteenth Century (Dover Publications: New York, 1963).

Goldstein, Thomas, The Dawn of Modern Science (Houghton Mifflin: Boston, 1980).

Hall, A. R., Scientific Revolution 1500-1800 (Longmans, Green, 1954).

Kline, Morris, Mathematics in Western Culture (Pelican: Harmondsworth, 1953).

Koyré, Alexandre, From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957).

Kuhn, Thomas, The Copernican Revolution (Harvard University Press, 1957).

Pledge, H. T., Science Since 1500 (HMSO, 1966).

Westman, Robert S., The Copernican Achievement (University of California Press, 1975)

You response to these experts who have access to other documents and can put the one document you point to back into its historical context (which is what historical anthropology does) is this BS song and dance of Chinese whispers because they are saying something you don't agree with.

To rephrase an old saying 'no document is an island'. If we went only by what the Gospels said rather then also looking at the surviving documents regarding the social political situation we wouldn't know they were effectively talking nonsense.

A more recent example of this with regards what the Native Americans cultures were like was in William H. McNeil's 1976 Plagues and Peoples as it pointed out what was recorded by the Europeans was distorted by the disease that traveled down the trade networks ravaging the native population before they ever saw a white man. It forced a revaluation of those works not only in the context of disease but was there any temptation to exaggerate what they were seeing (what they were told was already suspect because the Natives figured out that telling them of gold over the next hill was a great way to get rid of these guys ).

Based on other documents historical anthropology showed there was strong pressure for them to exaggerate what they found. Now how many actually gave into it is unclear but it doesn't force one to take those works with a. little more grain of salt then was done previously.

Last edited by maximara; 21st January 2021 at 10:53 PM.
maximara is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2021, 06:47 AM   #400
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
HansMustermann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 18,030
Right, so more empty handwaving, more irrelevant detours, but at the end of the day you're still proposing a literal conspiracy theory and still can't show any evidence.

Also, sorry, but just dropping a long list of names and leaving it to the other guy to check them all and see if you have a point, doesn't work for you any more than it does for any other CT-er or apologist. If you want to claim that such evidence exists, it's your burden to show it. You don't just get to demand that someone else does the research for you.

Doubly so when you don't seem to have even actually read any of that yourself, and don't know which, if any, actually says anything about the pope secretly using Copernicus. You're just copying someone else's references, and then doing the dumbass dance of 'if you disagree with me, you're disagreeing with the EXPERTS.' Not that that holds any water in any case, but it's downright dumb when you haven't even read those supposed experts and don't know what they say.

Oh, and you also don't get to just postulate that they may have had access to other documents. That is not evidence. You don't get to support something just by supposing that some evidence might exist somewhere, you just don't know what it is and where. If you can't show it, then you don't have evidence.

Seriously, what you're doing is dumber by half than even the average effort in the actual conspiracy theory forum. I mean, at least those have actually read some 'controlled demolition' report or whatnot, and can tell you what's in it. Even those don't just ASSUME that some document must exist somewhere that proves their point.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd January 2021 at 06:52 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.